Chung Fu Industries (Philippines) Inc. vs.

Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 96283 February 25, 1992
ROMERO, J.
TOPIC:

FACTS:
Petitioner Chung Fu Industries and private respondent Roblecor Philippines, Inc.
entered into a construction contract whereby private respondent contractor committed to
construct petitioner corporation's industrial/factory complex in Tanawan, Tanza, Cavite.
In the event of disputes arising from the performance of subject contract, it was
stipulated therein that the issue(s) shall be submitted for resolution before a single
arbitrator chosen by both parties.

Respondent Roblecor failed to complete the work despite the extension of time allowed
it by Chung Fu. Subsequently, the latter had to take over the construction when it had
become evident that Roblecor was not in a position to fulfill its obligation.

Claiming an unsatisfied account and unpaid progress billings, Roblecor filed a petition
for Compulsory Arbitration with prayer for Temporary Restraining Order before
respondent Regional Trial Court, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the construction
agreement.

Respondent Regional Trial Court approved the arbitration agreement which provides
among others that the decision of the arbitrator shall be final and unappealable.
Therefore, there shall be no further judicial recourse if either party disagrees with the
whole or any part of the arbitrator's award. Thereafter, Engr. Willardo Asuncion was
appointed as the sole arbitrator.

Arbitrator Asuncion ordered petitioners to immediately pay respondent contractor and

further declared the award as final and unappealable, pursuant to the Arbitration
Agreement precluding judicial review of the award. Consequently, Roblecor moved for
the confirmation of said award. On the other hand, Chung Fu moved to remand the
case for further hearing and asked for a reconsideration of the judgment.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the parties who agree to submit their disputes to arbitration further
provide that the arbitrators' award shall be final, unappealable and executory

HELD: No.
It is stated explicitly under Art. 2044 of the Civil Code that the finality of the arbitrators'
award is not absolute and without exceptions. Where the conditions described in
Articles 2038, 2039 and 2040 applicable to both compromises and arbitrations are
obtaining, the arbitrators' award may be annulled or rescinded. Additionally, under
Sections 24 and 25 of the Arbitration Law, there are grounds for vacating, modifying or
rescinding an arbitrator's award. Thus, if and when the factual circumstances referred to
in the above-cited provisions are present, judicial review of the award is properly
warranted.

The proper remedy is certiorari under Rule 65 of the Revised Rules of Court. It is to be
borne in mind, however, that this action will lie only where a grave abuse of discretion or
an act without or in excess of jurisdiction on the part of the voluntary arbitrator is clearly
shown. For "the writ of certiorari is an extra-ordinary remedy and that certiorari
jurisdiction is not to be equated with appellate jurisdiction. In a special civil action of
certiorari, the Court will not engage in a review of the facts found nor even of the law as
interpreted or applied by the arbitrator unless the supposed errors of fact or of law are
so patent and gross and prejudicial as to amount to a grave abuse of discretion or an
exces de pouvoir on the part of the arbitrator."